Prakash S/O Shivram Natkar vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Wadgaon Road ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3230 Bom

Bombay High Court

Prakash S/O Shivram Natkar vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Wadgaon Road ... on 17 March, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:2662




              Judgment

                                                                           376 revn61.22

                                                 1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                    CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.61 OF 2022

              Prakash s/o Shivram Natkar,
              aged about 51 years, occupation : service,
              r/o plot No.47, Mahavir Nagar,
              Part-II, Darwha Road, Yavatmal,
              taluka and district Yavatmal.          ..... Applicant.
                                    :: V E R S U S ::
              1. State of Maharashtra, through
              Police Station Officer, Police Station
              Wadgaon Road, Yavatmal,
              taluka and district Yavatmal.

              2. Anti Corruption Bureau,
              Yavatmal.                                  ..... Non-applicants.
              Shri P.R.Agrawal, Counsel for the Applicant.
              Mrs.Ritu     Sharma,    Additional     Public   Prosecutor     for       the
              Non-applicants/State.

              CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
              CLOSED ON : 24/02/2025
              PRONOUNCED ON : 17/03/2025

              JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel Shri P.R.Agrawal for the

applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor

Mrs.Ritu Sharma for the non-applicants/State.

.....2/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

2. The present revision is filed by the applicant in

connection with Crime No.3302/2015 registered with

the non-applicant police station under Sections 7 and

13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 against rejection of discharge

application vide Exh.18 dated 31.1.2022.

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the revision

are as follows:

The applicant is accused No.1 in Special (ACB)

Case No.9/2017 instituted on the basis of FIR lodged by

one Satish Moreshwar Deshmukh with the non-

applicant/police station alleging that accused No.2

Mohsin Khan Anwar Ali Khan who was working as

Cashier at Block Development Office, Panchayat Samiti,

Yavatmal allegedly demanded Rs.4000/- for disbursing

of Rs.27,990/- towards the bill raised by one Sachin

.....3/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

Bhagat for the work of data entry undertaken by Sachin

Bhagat on behalf of himself and on behalf of the present

accused who was discharging his duties as Assistant

Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Yavatmal

at the relevant time. It is further alleged that after

receiving the complainant, officials of the Anti

Corruption Bureau (the bureau) conducted a trap in

which co-accused Mohsin Khan was caught red handed

by accepting Rs.2000/- from original complainant

Sachin Bhagat. After the raid, the applicant as well as

the co-accused were arrested and released on bail.

During investigation, the Investigating Officer

approached the appointing authority of the present

applicant namely Government of Maharashtra, Gram

Vikas and Water Conservation Department, Mumbai for

obtaining sanction. However, the Deputy Secretary of

the said Department of the Government of Maharashtra

.....4/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

communicated with the Investigating Officer that

perusal of the investigation papers show that no prima

facie case is made out against the applicant and denied

to accord the sanction. Though the Investigating Officer

again requested to revise the earlier decision of non-

grant of the sanction, the Government again

communicated and denied the sanction. After

completion of the investigation, the chargesheet is

submitted against the applicant.

4. As the cognizance was taken, in absence of the

sanction, it is not permissible by law. The applicant

approached the court by filing an application for

discharge and the same was rejected.

Hence, this revision.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that

the application for discharge was filed on two grounds;

.....5/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

(1) in absence of the sanction, in view of Section 19(1)

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the court cannot

take cognizance. In absence of the sanction, the entire

trial vitiates; and (2) the applicant is already exonerated

from the departmental enquiry. He submitted that the

entire investigation papers nowhere show that it was the

applicant who has demanded the amount and accepted

the same through the co-accused. Even, recital of the

FIR nowhere discloses that it was the present applicant

who has demanded the gratification amount. After the

investigation, the Investigating Officer approached the

Government of Maharashtra, Gram Vikas and Water

Conservation Department, Mumbai for obtaining the

sanction. The said sanction was refused. Again, the

Investigating Officer approached the concerned

department for obtaining the sanction. But, the earlier

decision was not revised. Thus, the prosecution has

.....6/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

filed the chargesheet against the present applicant and

cognizance was taken in absence of the sanction.

6. In view of Section 19 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, there is a complete bar on the power of

the court to take cognizance of offences punishable

under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15 alleged to have

been committed by the public servant except with the

previous sanction of the competent authority. Clauses

(a) to (c) of Section 19, clearly show that the sanction

for prosecution has to be granted with respect to a

specific accused and only after sanction has been

granted that the court gets the competence to take

cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7,

10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by

such public servant. He submitted that likewise, in view

of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, if an accused

is completely exonerated on merit in a departmental

.....7/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

enquiry, a separate criminal prosecution on the same set

of facts is generally not allowed to continue. For all

above these reasons, learned Judge below ought to have

allowed the application for discharge, but learned Judge

below rejected the application erroneously.

7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for

the applicant placed reliance on following decisions:

1. State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Nishant Saree, reported in 2011 AIR (SC) 404;

2. Nanjappa vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 3318;

3. State of Punjab vs. Partap Singh Verka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 3299;

4. Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and anr, reported in 2020(9) SCC 636;

5. Criminal Application (APL) No.734/2020 (Keshav vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors) decided by this court on 20.6.2022;

.....8/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

6. Sanjay s/o Laxman Kholapurkar vs. State of Maharashtra, through Superintend of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur (Criminal Revision Application No.141/2019) decided by this court on 16.9.2021;

7. Siddappa Kashiraya Savli vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2024 ALL MR (Cri) 4165, and

8. Dr.Gurfan Beig vs. CBI, ACB Pune and anr, reported in 2024 ALL MR (cri 3427.

8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the State supported the order impugned in the

revision and submitted that criminal and disciplinary

proceedings based on the same charge exoneration and

disciplinary proceeding held by itself not a ground for

quashing criminal proceeding. The criminal case is to be

decided on the basis of evidence adduced therein and

cannot be rejected on the basis of the evidence in

departmental proceedings. She further submitted that

whether there was sanction or not or whether there was

.....9/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

valid sanction or not is a matter of evidence. At this

stage, even, strong suspicion is sufficient to frame the

charge against the accused.

9. After hearing both the sides and perusing of the

investigation papers, it reveals that application for

discharge was filed mainly on two grounds that

cognizance is taken in absence of the sanction and the

applicant is exonerated from the department enquiry.

As far as factual aspects are concerned, it is undisputed

that the applicant was serving as the Block Development

Officer and the co-accused was working as Cashier with

him. The FIR was lodged on the basis of complaint by

one Satish Deshmukh alleging that the co-accused has

demanded the bribe amount for disbursing the payment

of Rs.27,990/- for himself and the applicant.

Accordingly, raid was conducted and the co-accused was

found accepting the bribe amount. During the

.....10/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

investigation pre-trap and post-trap panchanamas were

drawn. The genuineness of the demand is also verified.

Before completion of the investigation, the

communication was made to the Government of

Maharashtra, Gram Vikas and Water Conservation

Department, Mumbai on 16.12.2016 for according the

sanction to launch prosecution against the applicant.

The Deputy Secretary of the said Department by

communication dated 19.5.2017 refused to accord the

sanction. Subsequent to that communication, again, a

request was made by letter dated 14.8.2017 to revise the

decision and to accord the sanction. The said request

was also rejected and the sanction was not granted.

Thus, admittedly, without sanction, the chargesheet was

filed against the applicant. It is also a matter of record

that for the alleged misconduct, departmental enquiry

was conducted against the applicant in which he was

.....11/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

exonerated. Thereafter, the application was filed for

discharge which was rejected. Subsequent to that, the

applicant filed Criminal Revision Application

No.129/2019 which was decided on 17.12.2021

granting liberty to the applicant to file another

application raising the ground of sanction and,

therefore, the applicant filed a fresh application vide

Exh.18 the same was rejected on 31.1.2022 and the said

order is under challenge.

10. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is

necessary to see the considerations for considering the

application for discharge.

11. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of

considering an application for discharge, the court must

proceed on the assumption that the material which has

been brought on record by the prosecution is true and

.....12/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

evaluate the material in order to determine whether the

facts emerging from the material, taken on its face

value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary

of the offence alleged.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of

Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, reported in MANU/

SC/1113 2023, adverting to the earlier propositions of

law in its earlier decisions in the cases of State of Tamil

Nadu vs. N.Suresh Rajan and ors, reported in (2014) 11

SCC 709 and The State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath

Thapa, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 659 and The State of

MP Vs. Mohan Lal Soni, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 338,

has held as under:

"10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on an assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the

.....13/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

prosecution is true and evaluate said material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. N.Suresh Rajan and ors, (2014) 11 SCC 709 adverting to the earlier propositions of law laid down on this subject has held:

"29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the

.....14/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage."

.....15/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

13. Thus, at the stage of considering the application

for discharge, the defence of the accused is not to be

looked into. The expression "the record of the case" used

in Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to

be understood as the documents and materials, if any,

produced by the prosecution. The provisions of the

Code of Criminal Procedure does not give any right to

the accused to produce any document at the stage of

framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is

to be confined to the material produced by the

investigating agency. The primary consideration at the

stage of framing of charge is the test of existence of a

prima facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of

materials on record need not be gone into. At the stage

of entertaining the application for discharge under

Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court

.....16/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

cannot analyze or direct the evidence of the prosecution

and defence or the points or possible cross examination

of the defence. The case of the prosecution is to be

accepted as it is.

14. In the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar

Samal and anr, reported in (1973)3 SCC 4, the Hon'ble

Apex Court considered the scope of Section 227 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. After adverting to the

various decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court has

enumerated the following principles:

"(1) That the Judge while considering the

question of framing the charges under section

227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift

and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of

finding out whether or not a prima facie case

against the accused has been made out.

.....17/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

(2) Where the materials placed before the Court

disclose grave suspicion against the accused

which has not been properly explained the Court

will be, fully justified in framing a charge and

proceeding with the trial.

(3) The test to determine a prima facie case

would naturally depend upon the facts of each

case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of

universal application. By and large however if

two views are equally possible and the Judge is

satisfied that the evidence produced before him

while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave

suspicion against the accused, he will be fully

within his right to discharge the accused.

(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under

section 227 of the Code the Judge which under

.....18/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

the present Code is a senior and experienced

Judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a

mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to

consider the broad probabilities of the case, the

total effect of the evidence and the documents

produced before the Court, any basic infirmities

appearing in the case and so on. This however

does not mean that the Judge should make a

roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the

matter and weigh the evidence as if he was

conducting a trial."

15. Now, the question whether the court can take

cognizance in absence of the sanction.

16. Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 reads as follows:

"19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution. (1) No Court shall take

.....19/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

cognizance of an offence punishable under [sections 7, 11, 13 and 15] alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction [save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014)] -

(a) in the case of a person [who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed] [Substituted 'who is employed' by Act No. 16 of 2018, dated 26.7.2018.] in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;

(b) in the case of a person [who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed] in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with sanction of the State Government, of that Government;

.....20/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.

[Provided that no request can be made, by a person other than a police officer or an officer of an investigation agency or other law enforcement authority, to the appropriate Government or competent authority, as the case may be, for the previous sanction of such Government or authority for taking cognizance by the court of any of the offences specified in this sub-section, unless-

(i) such person has filed a complaint in a competent court about the alleged offences for which the public servant is sought to be prosecuted; and

(ii) the court has not dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and directed the complainant to obtain the sanction for prosecution against the public servant for further proceeding:

Provided further that in the case of request from the person other than a police officer or

.....21/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

an officer of an investigation agency or other law enforcement authority, the appropriate Government or competent authority shall not accord sanction to prosecute a public servant without providing an opportunity of being heard to the concerned public servant:

Provided also that the appropriate Government or any competent authority shall, after the receipt of the proposal requiring sanction for prosecution of a public servant under this sub-section, endeavour to convey the decision on such proposal within a period of three months from the date of its receipt:

Provided also that in case where, for the purpose of grant of sanction for prosecution, legal consultation is required, such period may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, be extended by a further period of one month:

Provided also that the Central Government may, for the purpose of sanction for prosecution of a public servant, presecribe such guidelines as it considers necessary.

.....22/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

Explanation. - For the purposes of sub-section (1), the expression "public servant" includes such person-

(a)who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed; or

(b)who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed and is holding an office other than the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed.]

(2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.

.....23/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),

(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub- section (1), unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby;

(b) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice;

(c) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no Court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.

.....24/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

(4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings.

Explanation. For the purposes of this section,

(a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction;

(b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature."

17. The object underlying Section 19 is to ensure that

a public servant does not suffer harassment on false,

frivolous, concocted or unsubstantiated allegations. The

exercise of power under Section 19 is not an empty

.....25/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

formality since the Government or for that matter the

sanctioning authority is supposed to apply its mind to

the entire material and evidence placed before it and on

examination thereof reach conclusion fairly, objectively

and consistent with public interest as to whether or not

in the facts and circumstances sanction be accorded to

prosecute the public servant.

18. A plain reading of Section 19(1) of the Prevention

of Corruption Act leaves no manner of doubt which

mandates that for taking cognizance of offences

punishable Sections 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15 against public

servant and previous sanction of the competent

authority is required. The court cannot take cognizance

in absence of the sanction. Sub section (1) of Section 19

in absolute terms states that the sanction is the pre-

condition to take cognizance.

.....26/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

19. Thus, legal position is clear that the statute

forbids taking of cognizance by the court against public

servant except with the previous sanction of an authority

competent to grant such sanction in terms of Clauses

(a), (b) and (c) of Section 19(1). The question

regarding validity of such sanction can be raised at any

stage of the proceedings. The competence of the court

trying the accused so much depends upon the existence

of a valid sanction. In case, the sanction is found to be

invalid, the authority or the State is at liberty to

approach to the concerned authority to obtain a valid

sanction, but the Section creates a complete bar on the

power of the court to take cognizance of an offence

punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged

to have been committed by a public servant, except with

the previous sanction of the competent authority

enumerated in clauses (a) to (c) of this sub-section. If

.....27/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

the sub-section is read as a whole, it will clearly show

that the sanction for prosecution has to be granted with

respect to a specific accused and only after sanction has

been granted that the court gets the competence to take

cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7,

10, 11, 13 and 15.

20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of

Himachal Pradesh vs. Nishant Saree supra relied upon

by learned counsel for the applicant explained the object

of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and

observed by referring its earlier decisions that object

underlying Section 19 is to ensure that a public servant

does not suffer harassment on false, frivolous, concocted

or unsubstantiated allegations.

21. In Nanjappa vs. State of Karnataka supra, the

Hon'ble Apex Court held that the prosecution of public

.....28/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

servant in corruption case without valid sanction, the

court would discharge the accused and not acquit the

accused on merits. By referring Section 19 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court by

referring the judgment of the Division Bench in the case

of Baij Nath Tripathi vs. The State of Bhopal and anr,

reported in AIR 1957 SC 494 held since no sanction

according to law had been given for the prosecution of

the accused, the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to

take cognizance of the case and that the trial was invalid

and void ab initio, hence quashed relegating the parties

to the position as if no legal chargesheet had been

submitted against the appellant.

22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of

Punjab vs. Partap Singh Verka supra also by the

referring the earlier decisions held that the law declared

by this Court emerging from the judgments referred to

.....29/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

hereinabove, leaves no room for any doubt that under

Section 197 of the Code and/or sanction mandated

under a special statute (as postulated under Section 19

of the Prevention of Corruption Act) would be a

necessary prerequisite before a court of competent

jurisdiction takes cognizance of an offence (whether

under the Penal Code, or under the special statutory

enactment concerned). The procedure for obtaining

sanction would be governed by the provisions of the

Code and/or as mandated under the special enactment.

The words engaged in Section 197 of the Code are, "...

no court shall take cognizance of such offence except

with previous sanction..." Likewise, Sub section (1) of

Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act provides

no court shall take cognizance except with the previous

sanction. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court held the

mandate is clear and unambiguous that a court "shall

.....30/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

not" take cognizance without sanction. The same needs

no further elaboration. Therefore, a court just cannot

take cognizance without sanction by the appropriate

authority.

23. Though learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

the State placed reliance on the decision in the case of

L.Narayana Swamy vs. State of Karnataka and ors,

reported in (2016)9 SCC 598, considering facts and

circumstances in the cited decision and facts of the

present case are not identical and, therefore, the said

decision is not helpful to the state.

24. The other ground raised by the applicant is that,

he is exonerated from the departmental enquiry.

25. Admittedly, the applicant is exonerated from the

departmental enquiry. Whether that would be sufficient

ground to discharge the accused, learned counsel for the

.....31/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

applicant placed reliance on the decision in the case of

Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. The Deputy

Superintendent of Police supra wherein the Hon'ble

Apex Court held that the standard of proof in a criminal

case is much higher than that of the adjudication

proceedings. The Enforcement Directorate has not been

able to prove its case in the adjudication proceedings

and the appellant has been exonerated on the same

allegation. The Hon'ble Apex Court, by referring the

various judgments, culled out the ratio of the said

decision and concluded that the yardstick would be to

judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication

proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is

identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in

the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is

found on merit that there is no contravention of the

provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings,

.....32/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the

process of the court.

26. The said aspect is also dealt with by this court in

the case of Keshav vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors

supra and Sanjay s/o Laxman Kholapurkar vs. State of

Maharashtra supra.

27. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashoo

Surendranath Tewari supra observed that if the material

on record is scrutinized on the anvil of settled position

of law, the irresistible conclusion is that the material is

insufficient to the commission of offence under the Act.

28. As far as the decision relied upon by learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in the case of

State of (NCT of Delhi) vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi, reported

in (2012)9 SCC 685 is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex

Court considered the various decisions and held that

.....33/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings based

on same charge, exoneration in disciplinary proceedings

held by itself not a ground for quashing criminal

proceedings. The criminal case is decided on the basis

of evidence adduced therein and cannot be rejected on

the basis of evidence in departmental proceeding or

report of enquiry officer. However, if prosecution is

solely based on a finding in a disciplinary proceeding

and same is set aside by superior authority, as the very

foundation goes, prosecution may be quashed. It is

further held that disciplinary authority is entitled to take

different view.

29. The ground raised by the applicant, as far as

sanction is concerned, is valid ground as the object

behind the sanction is to ensure that a public servant

does not suffer harassment on false, frivolous, concocted

or unsubstantiated allegations.

.....34/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

30. As observed earlier, the mandate of Section 19(1)

of the Prevention of Corruption Act is clear and

unambiguous that a court "shall not" take cognizance

without sanction. The same needs no further

elaboration. Therefore, a court just cannot take

cognizance without sanction by the appropriate

authority.

31. As far as the second contention is concerned, as to

exoneration in disciplinary proceedings, the cannot be

considered at this stage in view of the decision in the

case of State of (NCT of Delhi) vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi

supra which is the decision by three Judge bench and

the same was not referred in Ashoo Surendranath

Tewari supra.

32. After having sifting and weighing the evidence on

record, it is clear that the cognizance was taken by

.....35/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

learned Judge below in absence of the sanction. It is

well settled position of law that the courts cannot take

cognizance against any pub servant for offences

punishable Sections 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15 of the Act and

only after obtaining the sanction, the cognizance can be

taken. In absence of the sanction, the entire procedure

remains flawed. Learned Judge below ought to have

appreciated the said legal position while deciding the

application for discharge.

33. In this view of the matter, this Court passes

following order:

ORDER

(1) The Criminal Revision Application is allowed.

(2) The order dated 31.1.2022 passed below Exh.18 by

learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Special

.....36/-

Judgment

376 revn61.22

Case ACB No.9/2017 rejecting the discharge application

is quashed and set aside.

(3) The applicant is discharged of offences in connection

with Crime No.3302/2015 registered with the non-

applicant police station under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)

and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Revision stands disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) !! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 18/03/2025 09:56:04